CoreLogic Sanctioned Over $86,000 For Violating Court Orders Compelling Arbitration

CoreLogic Sanctioned Over $86,000 For Violating Court Orders Compelling Arbitration

PRESS RELEASE

CoreLogic Sanctioned Over $86,000 For Violating Court Orders Compelling Arbitration

On January 9, 2020, in the matter of Mitchell v. CoreLogic, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-02274-DOC-DFM (C.D.Cal.), United States District Court Judge David O. Carter ordered Defendant CoreLogic to pay $86,355.62 in sanctions to Plaintiffs’ Counsel Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. and Nichols Kaster, LLP for “willfully and unreasonably disobey[ing]” the Court’s orders compelling arbitration.

The order is the latest in a series of orders in the Mitchell case regarding arbitration. In the case, filed December 29, 2017, the plaintiffs – real estate appraisers for defendant CoreLogic – allege a variety of violations of state and federal wage and hours laws, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide adequate meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay premiums for missed breaks. In February 2019, CoreLogic filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court granted that motion, compelling opt-in Plaintiffs who signed arbitration agreements to proceed in arbitration. Plaintiffs did so, filing approximately 160 individual demands for arbitration. In May of 2019, CoreLogic filed an ex parte request asking the Court to enjoin the then-pending arbitrations. The Court denied the request, holding: “CoreLogic asked for resolution of any and all disputes by the arbitrator. Having compelled arbitration, the Court will not now stay those proceedings due to associated costs.”

CoreLogic later refused to participate further in approximately 111 of the arbitrations until the AAA resolved certain “threshold issues.” The AAA determined that these issues should go to individual arbitrators, then closed approximately 111 cases for CoreLogic’s failure to pay arbitration fees. Following the AAA’s administrative closure of these cases, Plaintiffs asked the Court to hold CoreLogic in default on its obligation to arbitrate and to retake jurisdiction over the cases. The Court declined to retake jurisdiction, instead ordering the parties to resume arbitrating. The Court did, however, find that CoreLogic had “displayed a pattern of dilatory conduct,” and had “willfully and unreasonably disobeyed” its orders. The sanctions order followed.

Plaintiffs’ counsel Matthew C. Helland, of Nichols Kaster, LLP said that Plaintiffs were pleased with the order. He noted that “individualized arbitration is expensive for employers, but employers who choose to compel arbitration must be prepared to defend those cases, no matter the cost.” Plaintiffs’ counsel Bryan J. Schwartz of Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. agreed, saying, “Plaintiffs are eager to proceed with their claims in arbitration and are hopeful that CoreLogic’s obstructionist tactics will now cease.”

Plaintiffs are represented by Bryan J. Schwartz and Natasha T. Baker of Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C., in Oakland, California, and Matthew C. Helland and Daniel S. Brome of Nichols Kaster, LLP, which has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California. The case is entitled, Mitchell v. CoreLogic, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-02274-DOC-DFM (C.D.Cal.).

For additional information about the case please call Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. at (888) 891-8489 or Nichols Kaster, LLP at (877) 448-0492.

Mitchell, et al. v. CoreLogic, 17-2274-DOC (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2019) (awarding over $86K in sanctions for Defendant’s failure to pay arbitration bills after seeking to compel claims to arbitration)